Submit your Article

 How would you characterize the current state of identity politics in Nepal?

Identity politics is a condescend­ing and patronizing term. It is not just about identity but also about equality, social justice and cultural rights. When you put all that togeth­er, it becomes dignity politics. By the way, dignity politics is not my term; this is a term Dr BR Ambedkar preferred. He said that for the Dalits the problem is with identity itself. So, it has to be dignity politics. In the same way, whether you call them Madhesi or Marsiha, the state does recognize their identity; it is dignity it does not give. It is about assertion of dignity and politics of dignity.

Unfortunately, power holders still dismiss the aspiration of dignity as identity politics. We are sometimes very condescending— that we are all Nepalis, that there are no differenc­es, and that in the eyes of the consti­tution everybody is equal. So dignity politics has not moved forward by an inch since the divisive constitu­tion was promulgated, which I keep saying was written not with ink but with the blood of Madhesi people.

Do you believe the practitioners of politics of dignity, for example the Madhesi parties, really want to bring about a social transfor­mation or are they using it only as a tool of power?

The moment you talk of political parties, their only means of estab­lishing dignity is by getting into pow­er. So it would be naïve to dismiss political parties for seeking power. Anybody who opens a political party has the ambition of getting into pow­er and implementing their agenda. But due to the ethno-national feel­ings in Nepal, it is not possible for a minority to exercise power. Even if they get into the government, they don’t have the power to implement their agenda.

Suppose they become ministers, then secretaries will drive them; sometimes even the peon has more say than a minister. Our ethno-na­tional establishment does not rec­ognize the existence of dominated groups in power structures.

From a theoretical standpoint, political parties have not lost their faith in this political process. So Upendra Yadav’s party stays in the government, agitates, stakes its claim, and waits for the right moment. They are playing a waiting game. When you are just waiting, it is better to be in the government than be outside and dismissed as an ineffectual opposition.

So in your view Upendra Yadav is doing the right thing by not quitting the government?

He hardly has any other option. It is easy for me to dismiss him as someone who has compromised his agenda and become part of the government. Once he was forced to accept this divisive constitution, once he was bound by circumstanc­es to take part in the elections, once he was elected, the choice was to join the government and take some of its benefits or just be on the road and keep agitating. You can be agitating for a long-long time. For instance, the Nepali Congress stayed in agitation mode for 30 years before it came to power. Now, the Marxist-Leninists, after deciding to join the political mainstream in the 1980s, have become part of the establishment and captured the entire system. There is hardly any difference between them in terms of ideology. Upendra Yadav comes from a Marxist-Leninist schooling, which has taught him not to stay outside but to use the system to change it from within.

The next set of elections are still years away. Nor does there seem to be a conducive environment for another movement in Mad­hes. Couldn’t these be the rea­sons behind Yadav’s reluctance to quit the government?

That again would be very simplis­tic because elections or changes in government can happen suddenly. After the 1991 elections, Girija Prasad Koirala had a comfortable majority but mid-term elections took place. In a transitional democracy, you cannot completely predict when elections are held. So elections, or something other than elections, can happen. I think the main question for Yadav is if he should prepare for a movement from inside the gov­ernment or from outside. If it is a mass party organizing a mass move­ment, being outside the government is more fruitful. But if it is a cad­re-based movement, experiences have shown, be it with BJP of India or UML of Nepal, that infiltrating the government proves to be a more effective strategy. Yadav’s political schooling is in cadre-based politics and he cannot think beyond that.

With Yadav in power, RJPN not being in a position to mount enough street pressure and CK Raut joining mainstream poli­tics, what is the state of Madhesi politics right now?

You do not see the fire now, but there is some smoke. And it is spread­ing from inside. Political movements are eruptions. When you have reg­ular eruptions, the volcano is not very big. Same with earthquakes. Scientists say if you have smaller earthquakes that means the ground is adjusting itself. If there is no quake for many years, you are waiting for a big one. Madhes seems to be waiting for the big one.

Who do you think is going to lead the next Madhes movement?

Nobody knows that. Who knew Madan Bhandari would lead UML after 1990? No one had heard his name. NC leaders were saying from Tundikhel that these rats had come out of their holes after there was democracy. People’s movements throw up their own leaders. In cad­re-based movements, leaders give ideology, build organizations, send cadres to the ground, who in turn mobilize people. The cadre-based movement we saw during the third Madhesi uprising in 2015-16 was a failure. This was unlike the two pre­vious Madhesi uprisings which were essentially people’s movements.

Cadre-based movements work when the policemen are yours, the teachers are yours, the CDOs are yours, and the judges are yours. They work because everybody has a relative in the establishment. The protestors are then heard. But when completely externalized groups like Madhesis who have almost nobody in the system erupt, this cadre-based system does not work. We saw in the third Madhes uprising how the police were happy to shoot protes­tors in the head and chest.

What is the level of trust between the Madhes-based parties and the Madhesi people?

It is deteriorating fast. After Bedananda Jha was taken up by the Panchayat establishment, he lost the trust of the people. Gajendra Narayan Singh went and took the oath of minister in labeda suruwal and people stopped believing in the Sadbhawana party. Upendra Yadav has become a minister and people have started losing trust in him. The same with the RJPN. But so long as the agenda is alive, we only have to wait for the next set of leaders.

What was the reaction of com­mon Madhesis when CK Raut decided to join peaceful politics? Was there a sense of resignation?

Raut was blown out of proportion by Kathmandu’s Khas Arya media. He never had mass support, only cadre support, especially among the 18-25 group. Among them, the educated have already left the coun­try, and the under-educated have also left for West Asia and Malay­sia. What I call the ‘half-educated crowd’ has a very romantic idea of creating a new country out of nowhere, as did the likes of Bhagat Singh and Subhas Chandra Bose in India. This kind of romantic idealism is always very vocal, very visible, and somewhat tech-savvy, but never very big.

But even in that small crowd, those that Dr Raut carefully culti­vated remain with him. But others are unhappy and abandoning him. Some naïve people who thought of Dr Raut as a savior felt let down. But Raut was always a marginal player.

Do you see any possibility of the constitution being amended any time soon?

No is the short answer.

Is that because the Madhesi par­ties do not have the power or is there no willingness on the part of the NCP and Congress to do so?

Both. The Nepali Congress and the NCP have this hubris that if the Shahs could keep the Madhesis down for 200 years, if the Ranas could keep them down for 104 years, there is no reason why they too should not be able to forever keep the Madhesis down in the name of republicanism and federalism. Their support base is mid-hill Khas Aryas and some Gorkhalis who have been made honorary Khas. They are very happy with the state of things. They have a kind of triumphalism—that we should show Madhesis who this country belongs to. So the Congress and the NCP are in no mood to cede an inch; and there is no longer a Madhesi party in the country, all are nationalist parties. Those parties that have Madhes as their primary constituency seem to have accept­ed that they have been defeated roundly. This country is waiting for new forces to emerge, new equa­tions, which may take some time, but it will happen. The only way 30 percent people will continue ruling over the remaining 70 percent is through the barrel of a gun. There is no other means.

You don’t seem to like the term identity politics. If so, can there be a common front among the defenders of politics of dignity?

No, it is wrong to say I do not like identity politics. It is just that I understand it differently. Identity politics is always the currency of the dominant community. So Nepal has dominant Khas Arya identity poli­tics, i.e. Nepali jaati, Nepali gaurab. For the minority and dominated groups, it is dignity politics. You must be aware Khas Arya is the only community defined in the constitu­tion. For others, even chief district officers have the right to define who is a Madhesi or who is a Janajati. For Khas Arya, nothing less than the constitution will do. Now the chal­lenge for the dominated groups is, can they come together and formu­late a kind of inclusive participatory identity which will establish the pol­itics of dignity where each identity would be reflected? That is a long journey. This is a new vocabulary. Old political parties are ill-prepared to face new ideologies.

Do you have a roadmap for build­ing a more inclusive society?

If I had a roadmap I would have been in the place of Pushpa Kamal Dahal or CK Raut. People keeping asking me why I don’t take up lead­ership. I can diagnose. But to pre­scribe, you need a certain kind of a gambler’s spirit and I do not have that. And I do not want to play with the lives of the people. I would rath­er wait for things to evolve. I believe in making people capable of taking their own decisions. Once a critical mass of such people is prepared, then the quality of leadership natu­rally improves.

Recently there was widespread flooding in Madhes, in which many died. Who did common Madhesis blame for the death and destruction?

Everybody knows provincial gov­ernments have no power. Those ministers ride cars and go around. That’s it. As far as the local bod­ies are concerned, these people have spent millions to become ward chairs and chairmen and vice-chair­men in rural municipalities. So they are out to recoup their money. The Madhesi people never had any hope from the central government, which they see as being comprised of alien rulers. They thought they would continue to endure the hardships, as they always have. 

 There is much talk of the IPS in Nepal these days. Some argue that as it is a military strategy, Nepal should not subscribe to it.

When we talk about our relation­ship with the wider world or with a specific country like America, we first need to be aware of our current political and economic situations as well as of our priorities. The current government leadership does not have a clear working modality on this. First, we need to formulate a national development policy and on that basis our security, foreign and other policies can be devel­oped. Only after the formulation of this development policy will we be able to evaluate our relations with India, China, the US, and frame our national interests. Then we can start a discourse on the role of China’s BRI, the US’s IPS and India’s ‘Make in India’ in Nepal’s development process.

Again, our government does not have a clear policy on how to derive maximum benefit from the IPS, largely because we do not have a national development policy. The US has listed us among its IPS part­ners but alliances are their neces­sity. Our necessity is not a military alliance. I see this as a continuation of America’s pivot or rebalancing policy and it falls under the grand strategy of maintaining the status of ‘America First’. We should not be troubled by such a strategy. We should rather collaborate with the US even while we continue to work within vibrant regional frameworks. We should learn to strike a balance.

Is the US trying to drag Nepal into a costly military strategy?

From the American perspective, trying to get Nepal into its military orbit is normal. But accepting some military support should also not be seen as an acceptance of a military alliance. At the same time, we are conducting joint military exercises with India, China and other coun­tries on specific issues such as engi­neering, information technology, and terrorism. But despite having a stable government, we have not made our position clear. We go to whoever invites us, and if there is criticism, we have a tendency of say­ing that we went there unknowingly.

America’s military influence and interest seem to have increased in Nepal of late. What could be the reason?

With the goal of retaining its global superiority in the current multi-po­lar world, the US is working to create new alliances and bases. After the conclusion of our peace process, we have seen more US activities here. Through the IPS, and by projecting India as its champion in the region, America wants to promote democ­racy and its principles and it expects India will remain its strategic part­ner in the region. But it is not easy to make an alliance with India, unlike with, say, Pakistan. India also looks after its own economic and strategic interests.

Sometimes, we analyze things by projecting ourselves as an important player. The reality is that we are indeed in an important place but we are yet to develop any kind of national capacity. It may also be a compulsion of big powers to show that Nepal is in their area of influ­ence. This is not a propaganda issue. We should not be in a hurry at the policy level.

Nepal’s old defense partners were India and the US. How do you see China’s new role as a military partner of Nepal?

China has an aggressive presence not only in Nepal. But the crux of matter is how we move ahead. As our threats multiply, our military and strategic alliance with China will further increase.

Does the BRI have greater secu­rity and strategic than economic components?

Some western countries are ask­ing us to question the BRI, citing the issues of debt-trap and sovereign­ty. They have come up with policy papers on the BRI and its implica­tions. On the other hand, China has invested heavily in science and tech­nology. When a powerful country comes up with such a grand strate­gy, the military component figures prominently. Therefore, the BRI has a military component and there is a desire to engage militarily. The military component has also been mobilized through private security companies.

There is a competition between the BRI and the IPS. Under the BRI, new infrastructures are being built. China has the Shanghai Economic Cooperation (SCO) which deals with broader regional and international issues. Under the BRI, China is invit­ing more and more countries for discussion. As a backup structure, China has the Asian Infrastructure Development Bank. Top positions of this bank are occupied by citizens of other countries. For some time, we should be open to development projects under both the BRI and the IPS. We can benefit from other big economies too. We should go beyond India, China and the US.

So we should cooperate with the IPS and the BRI despite their clear military and strategic com­ponents?

They obviously have military and strategic components. But we can­not have a policy of going one step forward and two back. There is a tendency of us stepping back based on the reaction of one country to our engagement with another coun­try. With such a flawed approach, we will get nowhere. We cannot remain aloof in this inter-dependent world.

How should Nepal collaborate with Chinese militarily?

There should be sectoral collabo­ration with Chinese military in areas such as medicine, engineering, intelligence, terrorism, and disaster management. We need collabora­tion in all these sectors because if we face a disaster tomorrow, India and China will be first countries to help us. We should look for compat­ibility. We should be in a position of responding to them when they come to assist us. Similarly, we may face new security threats and challenges, further boosting military collabora­tion with China.

In this context, how should Nepal reform its security bodies?

We should first discuss the right size of our army. If development is a key priority for the next 10 years, how many army battalions do we need for such development? There is no clarity on how we are going to mobilize our security forces. During army integration, there was the talk of creating a separate directorate for development-related activities. I don’t know what happened to it.

Is it right to say our defense col­laboration with India is stuck while such collaboration with China is increasing?

First, we are going to establish a National Defense University. We are working to produce knowledge. We already have a war-college. The Armed Police Force has a Masters’ course at its commanding staff col­lege. In Nepal Police, the academy is extremely capable. So we have a good understanding of our security discourse.

In the past, there was dependency on India in the area of study; now we are diversifying. As far as the per­ception that Nepal is tilting towards China is concerned, the situation is different. I just returned from China. The Chinese say they are ready to do many things here if only Nepal can come up with concrete plans. Indi­an media often says Nepal is tilting towards China, which is not true.

What could be repercussions of major powers continuing to increase their penetration in Nepal Army?

In terms of our economy and our investment in the security sector, we are not in a position of exert­ing ourselves militarily. The threats and challenges of cyber world are increasing. We alone cannot fight these challenges. So we need col­laboration. In the digital world, we need to cooperate with all three big powers we are talking about. Their presence will be more pertinent in coming days because they are coming up with technology-driven policies and strategies.

How do you read the new nation­al security policy?

This is the second edition of the national security policy. The first edition had come during the tran­sition from the interim constitution to the new constitution and sub­sequent implementation of feder­alism. We have already adopted a federal structure and province-level discussions about possible security challenges of the provinces would have been fruitful. For example, Province 2 is connected only with India while Province 6 is connected only with China. But the whole of our country is connected with both India and China. Similarly, the least developed Sudurpaschim province is connected with both India and China. National security discussion should thus be made more vibrant. There should be discussions in the national security council on Nepal’s relations with emerging and big powers, as well as issue-specific discussions. I think there has been a hurry while finalizing the document.

The policy has identified block­ade as a major threat to national security. What is your take?

The two latest national crises we faced were the earthquake and the blockade. If we want to decrease our dependence on the country that imposed the blockade, our focus should be on the finalization of the national development policy. The draft laws on the new national secu­rity council are not in line with the constitution. All these show we are working in haste. We are suffering from the hangover of short-lived governments that could do no long term planning.

1) What are the three words you would use to describe yourself?

Easy, honest and funny.

2) Who inspires you the most?

Me.

3) What is one thing you enjoy about your profession?

Acting.

4) What is your superpower?

Great intuition.

5) Your favorite getaway?

A friend’s house.

6) If you had only one day left to live, what would you do?

I would just be sad.

7) If you could wish for anything, what would it be?

Happiness.

8) If not in the entertainment industry, which field would you be in?

Engineering.

9) Which is the project you are proudest to be a part of?

Every movie I have acted in. A bit prouder of “Bulbul” though.

10) An opinion you hold that most people would disagree with?

There are lots! Perhaps, it would be opinions related to feminism.

CELEB QUIZ

Q. Which Nepali actor does Swastima want to work with?
a) Anmol K.C.   b) Rajesh Hamal
c) Bipin Karki    d) Ayushman Joshi

Send us you answer on our Facebook page. One winner selected by lucky draw will get a
Rs 2,000 coupon from Coffee Pasal, Durbarmarg.

Q. Three words you would use to describe yourself?

A. Persistent, genuine, realist.

Q. One quality of yours you would like to work on?

A. I have a habit of getting anxious in certain situations. I would like to work on remaining calm.

Q. An actor you would want to do a film with?

A. Shahrukh Khan.

Q. Who inspires you the most in the entertainment industry?

A. Aishwarya Rai and Dipika Padukone.

Q. What is that one thing you enjoy the most about your profession?

A. I get to travel!

Q. What superpower would you like to have?

A. Being able to teleport.

Q. If you had only one day left to live, what would you do?

A. I would spend that day with my family and my boyfriend.

Q. If you could wish for anything, what would it be?

A. To see more genuineness in this generation.

Q. What would you like to say to your fans?

     A. It is not necessary to go to a foreign country to earn money. There are many problems in Nepal but then it is important to create opportunities in           Nepal.